Concerning "real" Communists

and friends killed, discriminated against,
live in squalor because of Capitalism

and friends killed, discriminated against,
live in squalor because of Communism.

live in luxury because of Capitalism

and friends killed, discriminated against,
live in squalor because of Communism.

and friends killed, discriminated against,
live in squalor because of Capitalism

It's good that you recognize the contradictions and engineered downturns in the capitalist system.

...

Who gets to be the one to decide who the right lives to destroy are?

80% of the time it is not going to be the people who decide. It will be some evil dictator or corporate bought and sold politicians.

The EXACT same contradictions exist in Communism and Socialism.

90% percent of the people can be considered active onlookers at best. If you don't participate you don't get to complain.

Incorrect

Do you mean in theoretical lala land or reality?
Theoretical astrophysics or aerospace engineering?

Think about it. America is NOT superior or special in ANY way. We just have imperial control, but our hands are also tied by our commitments and treaties. We are not immune to the same pitfalls of countries in the past.

I am talking about every armed conflict that has taken place. Most people just try to get by and not think about it. Combatants/military personnel/revolutionaries make a very small percentage of the population. Anyone not resisting the bourgeoisie is fair game.

Correct

This much is obvious.

Attached: 0d48a7dcee3ac2cc3a1a0b2e10aadd2d7e285b1abdb96edbe1822830461285ac.jpg (230x272, 42.08K)

I feel so honored. I would like to dedicate this post to my mom, and eveyone else who has helped me get to this point. Not sure if my IP is right though, so might be unverifiable. Alas.
Anywayyys
Bold claim, way better than your earlier writing. I like it. I feel like I'm on the ropes already.
I had a whole little report coming up here, but I'm not enjoying the way it is written, and I read more of your post. It is very dry and bland.
SO that means I'm restarting, already tired, and have deleted much argumentation. Alas, what I do for Zig Forums.
For one, no, not anyone can be a Communist because "Communism is about economic organization of society."
You have engaged yourself in metaphysical thinking. Congratulations, you have failed. Yes, the goal of Communists is to abolish private property, but that does not mean anyone who claims to want that is a good/reasonable Communist. You obviously forgot, but there is an entire society built around private property. The very proletariat we seek are embroiled in it. Please, if you think it is unimportant to engage in non-economic pursuits(thusly making it unimportant to have certain beliefs, i.e not being racist), go to your nearest proletariat and tell them they are being economically exploited. Don't tell them why this is wrong, in fact, if anything, tell them it's accepted to be racist, homophobic, etc… Epxlain to them at length that they are being exploited. I absolutely guarantee you will be unconvincing. To abolish private property, military, political, and social force will have to be used. Society will have to be mobilised, and this will not happen on a purely economic foundation. Don't agrre with me, fine. Let's see what Marx says in the Communist Manifesto.
Marx agrees with me. There is more to life than pure economics, there is political need here, and unless you can make a white and black supremacist join hands with economics, you HAVE to realize the importance of political power/unity.
Now Marx recognizes the SOCIAL parts of Capitlaist society. Yet again, proving that there is more to establising Communism than pure economics.
Here he goes again, being intelligent.
The political, cultural, social, etc… portions of society are absolutely necessary for the establishment of Communist society. You can not activate purely economically and "activate Communism". Now that I've proven this, I will go further.
This is wordplay. Good political movements can NOT be hijacked by Capitalists. Socialist anti-racism can NOT be hijacked by Capitalists. It's literally impossible, it would cease to be Socialist. The "good and bad" movements here were Capitalist from the very beginning. The only good movement is a Socialist movement that is working towards establishing Communism, so I immediately throw off your accusations that I am some pearl clutching think-of-the-kids reacrionary. Capitalist "antiracism" is bullshit and so is Capitalist racism, but so is """socialist""" racism. The goal of Communists is to abolish private property, but this will be done with the organization of the proletariat, and this can NOT be done by reactionaries like racists, thusly precluding them from being Communists. (God dammit, do you see why I deleted my post? This is a WAY better beginning statement, but I'm too tired to edit and shuffle anymore.)
Racists are OBVIOUSLY precluded from organizing the proletariat because they literally do not believe in the proletariat organizing as a unified mass!!! They believe that the races are inferior to one another, that they need to be seperate, and so on. The racist is against organization of the proletariat, and he is thusly NOT a Communist.

Once you forget this bit…
This is just pearl clutching. You are literally making a slippery slope argument. No, user, just because we recognize racists are inherently disunifying, that does not mean you will be banned from smoking. These two things have no connection to eachother outside of your strawman.
know a lot of your eyes have glazed over reading this, and I agree, mine have too. Ill summarize for you all.
Communism is more than the pure abolishment of private property. The proletariat must be unified in the pursuit of the destruction of private property, and people that are not on board with that are thusly anti-communists and reactionaries, due to the inherently disunity that being against proletariat unity creates.
I can't believe I put this much work into this. It is dawning on me even more now that this user had no arguments. I was decieved by my own hubris by being called out. My post could have been shorter and of a higher quality if I had only realized this earlier, and had not let my expectations of an argument obscure my judgment. This post is shit and I can only hope that anyone reading this can piece together my argument into a smoother one. Oh my god. This was a bait post. I have been baited. My post is too long to even go into one post. I have actually, unironically been trolled. Fuck me.

Okay, OP is back.

True. Just like liberals are not permitted to substitute Communism with "everything progressive", racist or believers can't substitute Communism with ethnostate or "you can't be real Communist if you don't believe in [this specific] God".

What are those "basic principles" you speak of?

Does LeftCom have an argument?

Attached: Islamic Gommunism.png (500x500, 13.79K)

Actual bona fide anti-Communist.

Anyone with a gun decides it every second. Stop pretending that we live in some fantasy world where we are not starved and poisoned, denied basic medical assistance and education, subjected to humiliations from the rich and to artificial poverty, - and then brutally murdered, should we end up in the wrong place at the wrong time, for Capitalism breeds wars.

There is nothing hypocritical about wanting to be the one with the gun and arming people who share your ideas about improving the world.

Whole movements are hijacked by replacing Communism with support of dolphins and LGBT rights, but it is your post that matters.

I did not post a single thing in the NazBol thread.

Put the goalposts back:

That's how it always worked, you retard. You go to "proletariat" and explain how getting organized will permit them to get more money/better healthcare. Then you get trade union or whatever going. From this you can branch out with the support of other workers (simultaneous solidarity strikes "if something goes wrong for you tomorrow, you'll need others to help you"), paramilitary organizations to defend against hired goons, and Marxist education for those who want to understand the general strategy.

You can't do this with pictures of sad penguins. People are selfish. Getting proletariat organized as a class means proletariat defending it's own selfish interests.

All he says is that immediate goals of Communists are no different from those of Anarchists or whoever - even if the vision of post-revolution is different.

He points out that Capitalism is not about earning income personally, but through making others work for you.

You reversed cause and effect. All he says is that education is not unbiased.

You did not prove shit. Either you have no reading comprehension, or you are trolling.

Sure. All those SocDem and Liberal parties are totally legit.

So IRL no movement ever gets hijacked.

I'm not even going to check what this idiom means.

You are already deciding who is Communist or not based on qualities that are not linked to Communism. This is the slippery slope. There are plenty of ways to fight racism, but you choose to replace Communism with something else to do it.

> Communism is more than the pure abolishment of private property.
There. You've done it now.

A tactical decision cannot redefine objective.

Leftcoms? This is the Manifesto you fucking illiterate.

Child, standard LeftCom behaviour is to post wall-of-text quotes without any explanations.

Communism is the only way we can liberate ourselves from PoC baboonery and the jews

Bye bye shock troopers of capitalism (boons and jews)

You actually need an explanation?

Holy fucking shit.

(continued)
This retard tells us that ISIS could be Communist. What the fuck are they smoking? Hardline reactionary currents of the Abrahamic religions in general DISCOURAGE PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT so long as it is not detrimental to justifying and reproducing the religions, which is a retroconversion of philosophy into religion which tries to do away with philosophy outside religion - philosophy without philosophy.
How can a Communist NOT at a moral level be opposed to this blatant resistance against reason? Is it a matter of praxis? Is it unfair to these ideologues and whoever they at least claim to speak for? Communists strive for a world free of these bullshitters. Even if you try to differentiate the ends from the means, Communists must in fact progress in such matters as a Lacanian psychoanalyst would: at the level of finding inadequacies in things which try to justify themselves. Why, oh why do the Abrahamic religions rest upon philosophical thought as a crutch? Why does 'Islamic science' exist to work with and to justify the assumptions of 'Islam'? Religions are hopeless at justifying themselves when their own standards are taken to their conclusions; there is always some qualitative concept or set of concepts which is unaccounted for. This was not unknown to Kant, who did much to separate reason from specific religions. Another example would be Stirner himself, and I have already said much about him in another thread. Communists must defeat the forces of reaction and resistance to reason - and such forces include ISIS, yes, EVEN IF THEY SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT CLASS RELATIONS. Communists strive for the abolition of class while reactionary opportunists either promote collaboration between classes and adherence to a divided society or a society which is supposed to be run purely by a given set of classes (which reproduces the divisions of class society and does nothing to eradicate the essential nature of the antagonisms between classes: if all members of the current bourgeoisie dropped dead right now, we would most likely still be living in capitalism because nothing would stop the accumulation of capital: the distinctive social relation doesn't magically disappear).
You describe a revisionist tendency in making a straw man to represent the arguments of people whom you are labelling as being 'sectarian' but the truth is that you are both worse. Your drive to be 'inclusive' of other brands of 'communism' is in fact highly revisionist. In fact, you are promoting revisionism through allowing bullshit like racist 'communists' and crap like that. At the level of intellectual discussion, HIGH STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED. I'm not talking about arbitrary preferences - or at least, what you believe to be so arbitrary. There is always an objectively-correct position with regards to praxis so no sitting-on-the-fence agnosticism is going to cut it with Communism. If you include racists in your 'communism', you are not a Communist proper. Even though the core of Communism is at the level of religion-like doctrines, Communists must understand that it rests upon so much more as I've previously detailed alongside the conclusions of all of those bodies of thought. We don't expect this of proletarians right now, we would be mad to given the current state of the world. Communist forces have at least for the most part not been victorious overall in the 20th century. I am not performing an outreach operation here, though. I am talking to someone who is attempting to put forth some kind of large argument, arguing about the very nature of Communism itself as if they've learned a ton about it.

Already wrong you absolute fucking retard. Politics, culture, and economics are inseperable.

Oh youre a Zig Forumsfag or the FBI or just a truly massive fucking retard

Attached: gods-of-the-modern-world-the-epic-of-american-civilization-1934.jpg!Large.jpg (750x535, 82.33K)

lolwut

I'm sorry but this is fucking retarded
Just responding "incorrect" makes me hate this board

Real talk, what if a person:

a) is convinced that communism (the abolition of private property/the dictatorship of the proletariat) is something to strive for

but also

b) is a “race-realist” who believes that ethnically homogeneous societies are better (have more social cohesion, trust, etc.) than non-ethnically homogeneous societies?

Beyond calling such a person an idiot for believing in the spook of race which science has debunked, why is this treated as such an unreasonable position to hold?

Put differently, why is the ethnostate communist position ridiculed and dismissed? Obviously “the state” would mean something very different under communism. But some of us can’t spit the race pill back up.

Or to take it one step further:

Race-realist, traditionalist (male superiority, anti-gay, traditional family structure) communism